Absence of Harmonised Pollution Control Framework Undermines Environmental Governance – Supreme Court Flags Legal Anomalies Across Water, Air & Environment Laws Post-Jan Vishwas Amendments

“Composite Consent Orders Without Composite Appeal Rights Create Judicial Confusion; A Legislative Response is Urgently Required” –  Supreme Court of India, while hearing a batch of civil appeals led by Delhi Pollution Control Committee v. Union of India, initiated a comprehensive judicial scrutiny into the legal inconsistencies plaguing India’s core environmental laws — namely the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, particularly in the wake of sweeping changes introduced via the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to respond within six weeks to a detailed note submitted by the amici curiae, highlighting multiple statutory, procedural, and structural asymmetries across the three pollution control statutes that were traditionally synchronized but have now become legally fragmented post-amendment.

“Same Appellate Authorities Exercise Unequal Powers Under Water and Air Acts; This Jurisdictional Disparity Cannot Be Sustained” – Supreme Court Urges Legislative Harmonisation

The Court took note of glaring asymmetries in appellate structures, regulatory timelines, penalty provisions, and deemed consent mechanisms, all of which have become more pronounced following staggered implementation of Jan Vishwas amendments — amendments that are still non-operational under the Water Act in several states due to its Article 252 nature, unlike the centralised Air and Environment Acts.

Calling attention to the fragmented regulatory system, the Court remarked that “variance in statutory appeal mechanisms, penalty provisions, and enforcement powers between the three statutes undermines regulatory efficiency and legal certainty” and urged the MoEFCC to address these incongruities with urgency.

“No Statutory Appeal Lies Under Air Act’s Section 31A Even As Identical Orders Under Water Act’s Section 33A Are Appealable – This Legal Vacuum Cannot Be Ignored”

The appeals originally concerned administrative issues under the Air and Water Acts, but during the course of the proceedings, the Court — based on submissions from amici curiae — observed that composite consent and enforcement orders under both statutes are being passed, yet there is no unified appellate mechanism, leading to procedural anomalies.

The Court recalled its earlier order dated 4 August 2025, where it directed amici to file a comprehensive note on the inconsistencies. That note, now forming part of the judicial record, served as the foundation for the current order.

“Composite Orders, Fragmented Remedies: NGT’s Jurisdictional Limbo Exposed” – Court Cites Sterlite and Michael Lambert Jehan Decisions

The Court relied on existing judicial precedents — including T.N. Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries (2019) 19 SCC 479, and NGT’s Michael Lambert Jehan v. TNPCB (Appeal No. 24/2020, Southern Bench) — to underscore that while a Section 33A order under the Water Act is statutorily appealable to the National Green Tribunal, the Section 31A order under the Air Act is not, even if issued as part of a composite order.

The Southern Bench of the NGT, in fact, refused to entertain an appeal where directions were issued jointly under both provisions, holding that only a writ remedy was available, thereby defeating the purpose of statutory appeal structure.

“In cases where the SPCB issues directions under Section 33A of the Water Act and Section 31A of the Air Act through a composite order, this difference creates a legal impediment while contemplating a statutory appeal.”

The Court observed that this disparity results in “legal vacuum and procedural confusion” and referred to MoEFCC’s inaction, despite repeated flags raised since 2021, including public grievances and letters by legal commentators and CPCB correspondence.

“Deemed Consent Under Water Act Exists, But Not Under Air Act – Creates Regulatory Blind Spots That Allow Industrial Operations Without Oversight”

One of the most concerning findings in the amici note, accepted by the Court, pertains to Section 25(7) of the Water Act, which provides automatic or deemed consent if the Pollution Control Board fails to act within four months — a provision that has no parallel under the Air Act.

“This could lead to a situation wherein an industry which is granted a deemed consent after 4 months could remain effectively unregulated.”

The Court also flagged that the January 2025 Guidelines issued by the MoEFCC, which introduced a State Level Monitoring Committee mechanism, do not clarify whether they override or coexist with the statutory deemed consent clause under Section 25(7). The absence of clarity raises serious concerns about regulatory oversight, enforceability, and legal interpretation.

“Multiple Appeal Forums, Unclear Timelines, Incomplete Subordinate Legislation – Adjudicating Officers Under Jan Vishwas Act Add a New Layer of Legal Complexity”

The amendments introduced under the Jan Vishwas Act created Adjudicating Officers under the Air Act (Section 39A), Water Act (Section 45B), and EP Act (Section 15C), who are empowered to impose monetary penalties.

Appeals against their orders lie with the NGT. However, the limitation period for such appeals is now 60 days, and it remains unclear whether an additional 60-day extension, as allowed under Section 16 of the NGT Act, is also applicable.

“There is no clarity on whether the additional 60 days’ time period as per the proviso to Section 16, NGT Act is available.”

The Court noted that this creates parallel and overlapping appellate structures — one before the Appellate Authorities under the Water and Air Acts, and another before the NGT for different types of orders, creating significant confusion and forum-shopping risk.

“Penalties Under Water Act Go to Environmental Protection Fund, But the EP Act Doesn’t Recognise It – Statutory Gaps May Lead to Misapplication of Funds”

Another critical inconsistency relates to the Environment Protection Fund (EPF) established under Section 16 of the Environment (Protection) Act. While penalties under the Air Act and EP Act are clearly directed to this Fund, penalties under the Water Act are not expressly recognised under EP Act Sections 16(2) and 16(3).

“Rules need to be issued by the Central Government under Section 25(2)(gb) and (gc) of the EP Act specifically stipulating that penalty under the Water Act shall be deposited in the Fund.”

The absence of corresponding rule-making creates a statutory grey area, leading to ambiguity about whether penalties levied under the Water Act are legally deployable under the EP Fund mechanism.

“Environmental Compensation Must Be Based on Scientific Methodology, Not Conjecture” – Supreme Court Cites Benzo Chem and C.L. Gupta Export Precedents

The Court also acknowledged that the current practice of imposing environmental compensation lacks uniform methodology. The CPCB’s 2019 and 2022 reports contain detailed guidelines for calculating compensation for various violations — including illegal groundwater extraction, discharge of pollutants, and failure to implement waste management rules.

“While prescribing the methodology for assessing environmental damage and consequential damages, industry type/ source of pollution would have to be factored in.”

Citing the judgment in Benzo Chem Industrial (P) Ltd. v. Arvind Mahajan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3543, the Court reiterated that:

“The generation of revenue would have no nexus with the amount of penalty to be ascertained for environmental damages.”

This reinforces the principle that restitutionary damages must reflect actual ecological impact, not commercial valuation.

Taking on record the exhaustive note filed by the amici curiae, the Supreme Court concluded that the regulatory inconsistencies across India’s core pollution control laws warrant immediate executive attention. The Court granted the MoEFCC six weeks to file a comprehensive affidavit and to take instructions on the highlighted issues.

“Certainty in the law will ensure better implementation of the pollution control laws and act as a more effective deterrent.”

The matter is now listed for further hearing after six weeks, and the observations made are expected to guide future legislative and administrative reforms in India’s environmental governance framework.

Date of Decision: 26 September 2025